It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

battery- and/or electric-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11—including one in the heliport just outside the west wedge—were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2and that the first explosion stopped her wrist watch just after 9:30 a.m. 2B She has kept the stopped wrist watch in a safe deposit box as evidence

Some local circuits on the Sprint network in New York, which supply phone and Internet connections to area businesses, ran under the World Trade Center and were damaged, according to the company. Sprint has routed calls to other circuits in order to keep the flow of calls going.

Both types of failure—whether or not either of them occurred as a result of the September 11 attacks—are considered in this report. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF EVENTS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 As the catastrophe at the World Trade Center unfolded, elements of the communications and power infrastructures were impaired, damaged, or destroyed. Box 1.1 provides a detailed outline of what transpired on and immediately after September 11. Local effects, such as damage to Verizon switching centers and last-mile facilities, had direct effects on Lower Manhattan—notably, the loss of telephone lines and damage to the cellular-phone system. At the same time, the infrastructural damage had effects that extended beyond the immediate area. Following is a summary of the key events and their effects on telecommunications, including the Internet: 8:45–10:00A.M. Towers are attacked and set afire. Interior World Trade Center (WTC) communication is disrupted. Increased volume congests local exchanges and wireless networks. Limited physical damage occurs to the surrounding local telephone networks. 10:00–11:00A.M. Towers collapse. Because the WTC was a significant wireless repeater site, some wireless connectivity is disrupted (Sprint PCS, Verizon, AT&T Wireless). Several ISPs’ points of presence (POPs) in the complex—those of WorldCom, AT&T Local Service, and Verizon/ Genuity—are destroyed. Some data and private-line services to a diverse set of customers in New York City, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and even some European locations are disrupted. 11:00A.M.–5:00P.M. Local power failures occur and some equipment is switched over to battery and/or generators. Fires burn in the WTC complex. 5:20–5:40P.M. WTC Building 7 collapses, destroying a Consolidated Edison electrical substation in the process. The collapse also breaches the 140 West Street Verizon central office building, causing damage to equipment and the flooding of basement power systems. The fires, collapse, and flooding knock out much of the telecommunications service in Lower Manhattan. Although there were other significant events on September 11, 2001, this report mainly examines those in New York City. The crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and that of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon did not appear to have any additional impact on the public Internet’s infrastructure—though they were definitely a factor in shaping how people made use of the network. The ...

The department's communications equipment on Sept. 11 was just as solid. There were no disruptions in 911 service or in the department's police radio dispatch system, which was built in 1968. Police headquarters in lower Manhattan did lose phone service when a Verizon telephone station next to the Trade Center was damaged. But that had no effect on the department's ability to take emergency calls and dispatch units.

mlebek wrote:If i dont want pictures of my planes/missiles i simply would avoid to use them.

Nice post, mlebek. For what it's worth, there seems to be no shortage of reported electronic disruptions.

I also tend to agree with your final phrase (see quote). However, the perps reasoning would also likely have been : "If I don't want any private imagery to conflict with any of the prefabricated digital imagery (including the tower collapses), we should employ ALL the resources at our disposal to ensure a foolproof, 110% safety margin to achieve this end." This is the basis for my belief that electronic countermeasures were used, as I surmise this would be a common military logic and modus operandi.

"ECM (electronic counter measures): That division of ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) involving actions taken to prevent or reduce an enemy's effective use of the electromagnetic spectrum." http://www.sew-lexicon.com/gloss_e.htm#ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES

Most importantly (in the case of 9/11 and our present debate) we need to understand the distinction between 'soft-kill and 'hard-kill':

SOFT KILL - (1) Temporary disruption of the victim's equipment in order to seriously compromise that system's operation in critical areas. (2) The rendering of a weapon harmless to its intended target through use of non-destructive EW techniques.http://www.sew-lexicon.com/gloss_s.htm#SOFT_KILL

Of course, 'soft kill' would have been the preferred choice of the 9/11 perps - and to the best of my knowledge (having read a fair deal of tech-literature on the subject) electronic disruptions can even be calibrated to specific frequencies to affect only given devices operating within a given Hz range.

Keep in mind that the fact remains that we simply have not encountered any sort of authentic-looking private footage. Nor do we have any credible still pictures of the smoking/collapsing towers. Whether a missile was used or not (to show distant onlookers at least some flying object hitting WTC2) is not the issue here. It may well be, after all, that the towers just exploded, cutting plane-shaped gashes in their upper floors. They had an hour's time to fill Lower Manhattan with smoke and impede any clear view of the demolition spectacle. The bottom line is that any visual recordings of the morning's main events had to be denied - so as not to contradict their prefabricated, special fx "Hollywood" movie - complete with shock-and-awe inducing movie collapses, dramatic street sceneries and piss-poor actors.

It is difficult to generate high electromagnetic fields, and there can be secret tricks doing this. The electromagnetic field, that come out, can have no such secret properties. It will work like any other field! The properties generate some questions, and these answers narrow down the hypothesis that some EMP thing was in use. I'll see if I can take this slowly...

1) The filed will go forward until it go out in the atmosphere (and space). You cannot control the "range".2) The field will be weaker further away from the source, where it can be very strong. Undirected radiation drop about 6 dB at double distance; this is due to the increased area of a sphere at the double radius. 3) If you fancy using a directional antenna (like a dish) you are limited in directional accuracy by bending in the output aperture. There must be a wave length, and the size of the dish measured in wavelength matter. This put on a severe limitation in case you fancy some scenario where the tripod shall be spotted, and the energy "targeted" to the video camera.4) The important factor of a continuous signal or a pulse signal shall be accounted for. You may have one short pulse, several pulses, or many pulses in a continuous fashion. There are several and different issues as a function of this, and the EMP will have an impact as a function of this parameter.5) In case some continuous signal is used, or very many pulses, then the energy consumption must be accounted for. A commercial airport radar (biggest size!), how much raw electrical power do it consume? It don't disrupt electronics at long range, right?6) For the camera, to completely kill the camera, so it will never more come on, that would be one thing. It is much more tricky to simply remove the picture, so you don't capture any video, and then later the camera will be OK, fully operational and nothing broken.7) The video tape in the camera, that may or may not have captured some video already, it don't work similar to the camera. It is different. It is likely very much more resistant to electric fields. This imply that the video already recorded, before you apply field, will be recovered; and compare with the (4); if you use several short pulses, when do you "fire"?

Now the important stuff:8) Any metal object will receive your EMP signal (like an antenna) and the energy will be transported along the metal object some length of some wave lengths, whatever that will be, and the energy will be retransmitted from the object. This imply that any cable, ANY cable of any kind, will be a receiver and will amplify the effect of the EMP. So cable-attached gadgets go dead first, and battery operated cameras go later.9) ALL cameras, that you could buy commercially, was tested and did pass criteria for resisting electromagnetic fields. This is due to (a) regulations by law (b) you should be able to use the camera and take a good video even if some radar or other machine is running in the background. The levels we talk on here are low/modest compared to EMP style pulses.10) Some gadgets have an antenna attached, and a connected coax cable go to an electronic amplifier that is a part of the normal configuration of the gadget. Examples would be all types of radios (receivers), including TV, radio controlled equipment, the radio receiver for the alarm/radio key of the car (i.e. the receiver inside the car), etc. Think out all these, in range, and make a list of them, because these things are really sensitive. It don't take much to destroy the input amplifier if you apply a little EMP pulse.

In summary and conclusion, I fail to see how any global/long range EMP could be used without crippling the entire N.Y. That is of no relevance for short range use, such as blocking use within 10m of the EMP gadget. My conclusion is that if/when EMP was used, almost all electronic things at similar distance would be destroyed, and a lot of other equipment at longer range.

I'll guess that you don't want to block 50% of the TV signal amplifiers in N.Y if you plan sending propaganda for several hours?Edit for spell errors and minor changes.

Last edited by Tufa on January 11th, 2011, 5:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

Let's not also forget the incessant claim of the Naudet-Nextel propaganda flick that the firefighters' communication equipment failed them and the WTC internal communication also acted faulty. What to make of that part of the official narrative?

I pesonally experienced cell-phone jamming in a wide area of downtown Budapest, during the 2006 street riots (I was not rioting, I was just, you know, kind of happened to be there. At least, that is what I told my mother. But I was not throwing stones on the police, no matter what the cameras say) on 23rd October, 2006. Of course, it was just cell-phone jamming, not jamming all electric equipment, loads of films and pictures were taken.

But: I will try to find the link to a video I saw about 9/11, where the camera zooms out on a white airplane, not un-like the one above in a post, than zooms back to the towers.Why would it help, if all such footage is fake? Because, if these people are playing mind-games, maybe they have hidden this message as an insider joke for all in the know.

What do you think about this video. It looks real but the top of the towers is missing. Maybe the owner uploaded it, then someone deleted it, identified the uploader, visited him and confiscated it, cut unpleasent scenes, and distributed the unclassified version via youtube.

Maybe we underestimate the capabilities of the 9/11 producers regarding censorship.

mlebek wrote:it shows trivial stuff and i think someone cut out some parts. why someone should fake such a thing?

It is not 'someone', mlebek. We now know full well that these 9/11 images are false .

The working thesis of this forum is that all existing videos purportedly portraying the NY events of Tuesday morning, 11 September 2001, are digital constructions, in other words doctored images, in other words forged pixels, in other words counterfeit visual offerings, in other words, fake.

If this is not clear to you by now, I will ask you to take a break from this forum as you do not seem to be a very useful contributor. We are now entering the 10th anniversary year of this inane hoax and the last thing this forum needs now is slow and trivial minds.

Simon, sorry for my opinion but please give me some hints why the following video what looks perfect to me is a fake. i know how digitally genereated crowds of people look in hollywood films, not so real like in this video.how did they do that? i am really impressed about the quality if it is unreal.

The collapse didn't happen exactly the way it is depicted in the proven fake videos - therefore this video, which imitates the fakes better than the original 2001 videos, is fraudulent. It matches the animation in slightly enhanced detail with running persons, cars, vehicles, etc. It's simply a confirmation of fake video released previously. Simple as that.

If you must consider it a fake on its own merits for some bizarre reason (I would agree with Simon, then. You should take a long shower and come back to us after you've given it some real thought.) you must explain to yourself the method by which the tower "crumbles" and the smoke pours through the city like a cartoon, then halts.

But really the most important point is ... this video was put on YouTube several years later by 'anonymous'.